The Paradigm Shift in Ecology and Its Implications for Conservation

Fiedler, Peggy L.; White, Peter S.; Leidy, Robert A.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-6003-6_9

Cited by 34 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent decades, however, there have been conceptual and theoretical shifts in conservation ecology with the Flux of Nature gradually replacing the Balance of Nature as the ruling metaphor in conservation ecology (Barrett and Barrett 1997;Fiedler et al 1997;Pickett et al 1992). Furthermore, it is increasingly recognized that many biodiverse landscapes have been influenced by human management Gillson and Willis 2004) and conservation strategies are evolving in response to this changing perception (Foster 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area designation and management

Kalamandeen

Gillson

2006

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are a cornerstone of many conservation approaches, and concepts of pristineness and wilderness are often considered central to protected area designation and management. However, these concepts are rarely explored through a historical lens that captures the philosophies and assumptions underlying protected area designation. In this paper, we aim to improve our understanding of protected area designation and management by reviewing the history of four main conservation approaches: (1) Wilderness conservation and the Yellowstone Model;(2) Wise use and the Game Reserve Model; (3) Wildlife and Biodiversity conservation; and (4) Ecosystem management. Through examination of the history of these Models, we discuss the values, rationale and assumptions behind each approach, and how these interface with protected area designation. In each case, we explore the extent of dependence on concepts of wilderness and pristineness. We also highlight the evolution of alternative criteria for designating protected areas, and ascertain how far these alternative values influence protected area designation and management.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area designation and management

Kalamandeen

Gillson

2006

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The old paradigm in ecology was concerned with the`balance of nature', whereas the contemporary (or new) paradigm views ecosystems as dynamic and nonequilibrial (Wu and Loucks, 1995;Fiedler et al, 1997). The new view arose for a number of reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As both the biodiversity`discourse' and the new ecological paradigm emphasize the dynamism and heterogeneity of natural systems, resistance and resilience (recovery) become important ecosystem properties (Fiedler et al, 1997).`Resistance' is de®ned here as the ability of the system to absorb perturbations and prevent them from amplifying into large disturbances, while`resilience' is the capacity of the system to return to a given state after a disturbance (Perry and Amaranthus, 1997). Consequently, a relevant question in terms of forest management is how well and how rapidly ecosystems recover from the disturbance caused by timber harvesting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest

Niemelä

1999

Forest Ecology and Management

158

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disturbances and the consequent habitat heterogeneity are natural features of the boreal forest. Natural disturbances occurring at the level of populations, communities and ecosystems (meters to kilometers and years to hundreds of years), that is, at thè meso-scale' may provide useful guidelines for forest management. This approach is based on the assumption that species are adapted to the disturbance regime of the forest-type that they occupy. However, natural disturbance and human-caused disturbance, such as clear-cutting, may differ substantially in their ecological effects. Potential differences occur on several scales. On the stand scale, removal or destruction of important habitat structures, such as coarse woody debris, during traditional clear-cutting may affect species. On the landscape scale, fragmentation may cause local extinctions and hamper the recolonization of maturing sites by old-growth specialists. The effect of these differences on boreal biota needs to be assessed. On the stand scale, the degree of recovery (resilience) of populations and communities after human-caused disturbance versus natural disturbance, that is, the succession process, could be a useful criterion when developing new forestry methods. On the landscape scale, it is important to maintain enough patches of suitable habitat for the old-growth species in order to prevent local extinctions and to promote recolonizations. Natural landscapes could be used as a reference here. In conclusion, although possibilities of matching forestry with maintenance of taiga biota through development of harvesting methods that mimic natural disturbance seem reasonably good, there is an urgent need to establish criteria for the assessment of the success or failure of such methods. The resilience of forest ecosystems as re¯ected in population changes of surrogate taxa after disturbance could be used to guide management. #

show abstract

“…It should be kept in mind, however, that the arrival and use of the new paradigm does not imply an absolute replacement of equilibrium by nonequilibrium, but accepts equilibrial and non-equilibrial phenomena as scale-dependent. For instance, a number of patches of any community type within a landscape may be in dynamic equilibrium with other patch types, although the patches themselves are maintained by a non-equilibrium process (Fiedler et al 1997).…”

Section: Focus Points and Conceptual Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental conservation and restoration ecology: two facets of the same problem

Urbańska

2000

Web Ecol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Restoration ecology has often been regarded as a subordinate component of conservation biology and yet the two disciplines differ from each other. Conservation aims at staving off extinction, i.e. preserving ecological structures and services which still exist, however endangered they may be. On the other hand, the principal objective of restoration is re-building ecological structures and services that have been destroyed. The most distinct focus of conservation is on population response to exploitation, whereas restoration is principally concerned with over-exploited sites and landscapes in which communities/ecosystems are to be re-built. Conservation aims at preserving as many species as possible; on the other hand, the biodiversity approach in restoration may be addressed on three levels viz. 1) initial species diversity, 2) post-restoration increase of diversity via spontaneous species immigration, and 3) age-state diversity of developing plant cover. The conceptual framework in conservation biology differs from that in restoration ecology. The two basic paradigms used in conservation biology are 1) small-population paradigm and 2) declining-population paradigm, and one of its useful concepts is population viability assessment (PVA). The two principal paradigms used in restoration ecology are 1) nature-in-balance paradigm and 2) nature-in-flux paradigm. Interfaces between conservation and restoration may be recognized when e.g., recovery strategies for threatened species include habitat/ecosystem restoration, or when population processes in non-threatened species are studied to verify their usefulness as restoration material. Integration of species and ecosystem approaches is already recognizable in ecology. It is to be hoped that in future conservation and restoration become integrated components of ecosystem management, but for the time being they remain two different facets of the same problem which is the negative human impact upon environment.

show abstract

The Paradigm Shift in Ecology and Its Implications for Conservation

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area designation and management

Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area designation and management

Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest

Environmental conservation and restoration ecology: two facets of the same problem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About